Curious what my fellow Massholes think about the new minimum wage law, specifically the part that says businesses no longer have to pay time-and-a-half for Sundays and holidays. Is everyone just going to stop working those days, or do you think some businesses will continue to offer the extra money to incentivize people to take those shifts?

Curious what my fellow Massholes think about the new minimum wage law, specifically the part that says businesses no longer have to pay time-and-a-half for Sundays and holidays. Is everyone just going to stop working those days, or do you think some businesses will continue to offer the extra money to incentivize people to take those shifts?

I thought you were from Montana. Did I dream that up?

_________________"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle

Curious what my fellow Massholes think about the new minimum wage law, specifically the part that says businesses no longer have to pay time-and-a-half for Sundays and holidays. Is everyone just going to stop working those days, or do you think some businesses will continue to offer the extra money to incentivize people to take those shifts?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Trump administration on Tuesday will announce an aid package for U.S. farmers to protect them from the fallout of trade battles between the United States and other countries, a source familiar with the plan said.

...the administration was expected to announce billions of dollars in aid, and the Washington Post reported that the plan was to provide $12 billion in support.

Does anybody really believe the Dems don't suckle at the tit of lobbyists and big business?

I'm not even sure why that is inherently bad. The coordination of business and political interests is fine as long as it provides for the general economic good.

Why would anyone expect coordination between business and political interests to further interests beyond just those business folks and politicians engaged in the coordinating, even accidentally?

So so so so so much this.

Because not all interactions between business and government are based on the profit motive. Some people are really supporters of pro-choice orgs or green energy solutions totally independent of their own profit.

Yes and those are called not for profit organizations.

Unfortunately such organizations cannot spend more than 16% of their expenditures on lobbying*, and even that amount approaches the arbitrary limit on when the IRS can pull the plug on a not-for-profit's tax-exempt status.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Trump administration on Tuesday will announce an aid package for U.S. farmers to protect them from the fallout of trade battles between the United States and other countries, a source familiar with the plan said.

...the administration was expected to announce billions of dollars in aid, and the Washington Post reported that the plan was to provide $12 billion in support.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Trump administration on Tuesday will announce an aid package for U.S. farmers to protect them from the fallout of trade battles between the United States and other countries, a source familiar with the plan said.

...the administration was expected to announce billions of dollars in aid, and the Washington Post reported that the plan was to provide $12 billion in support.

Amateur hour.

Hey let's ourselves

Hey let's ourselves again to reverse the original ing ok

There are winners and losers in every trade war. But if we compensate the losers by taxing the winners, we can ensure that everyone loses.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Trump administration on Tuesday will announce an aid package for U.S. farmers to protect them from the fallout of trade battles between the United States and other countries, a source familiar with the plan said.

...the administration was expected to announce billions of dollars in aid, and the Washington Post reported that the plan was to provide $12 billion in support.

Amateur hour.

Hey let's ourselves

Hey let's ourselves again to reverse the original ing ok

There are winners and losers in every trade war. But if we compensate the losers by taxing the winners, we can ensure that everyone loses.

Nice quarter of growth, but one side is painting it as historic and a fulfilled campaign promise, while the other side is complaining about a misspelled word and yet another case of deliberately erasing Obama's achievements.

Can someone with more understanding of all this please help me understand what today's number means (big picture)?

Nice quarter of growth, but one side is painting it as historic and a fulfilled campaign promise, while the other side is complaining about a misspelled word and yet another case of deliberately erasing Obama's achievements.

Can someone with more understanding of all this please help me understand what today's number means (big picture)?

I think a typical mainstream economist would say that the economy is growing and wages should edge up. Don't be surprised if that 4.1% number ends up being revised multiple times. Today's number is a first draft and often subject to revision, but obviously it's a higher number than we've seen very often lately. Labor markets appear to be pretty tight. Unemployment is probably lower than is sustainable in the long run.

It would seem to provide more proof of how ill-timed December's tax cut was. We almost certainly didn't need budget-busting expansionary policies at a time when unemployment was already so low. Inflationary pressures will probably continue to pick up. The Fed will likely be more comfortable continuing to raise interest rates. I haven't looked at anything in the last day or two, but it still looks like we may see an inverted yield curve, which is often a precursor to a recession. But after a decade of the Fed manipulating short and long term interest rates, it's hard to say whether the yield curve is still a legitimate predictor of a recession. (If the Fed is more afraid of a recession than unemployment they may remain hesitant to increase interest rates.)

Idk if this what what you were looking for. I'm curious what thodoks thinks about the current fundamentals of the economy.

_________________"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle

Nice quarter of growth, but one side is painting it as historic and a fulfilled campaign promise, while the other side is complaining about a misspelled word and yet another case of deliberately erasing Obama's achievements.

Can someone with more understanding of all this please help me understand what today's number means (big picture)?

I think a typical mainstream economist would say that the economy is growing and wages should edge up. Don't be surprised if that 4.1% number ends up being revised multiple times. Today's number is a first draft and often subject to revision, but obviously it's a higher number than we've seen very often lately. Labor markets appear to be pretty tight. Unemployment is probably lower than is sustainable in the long run.

It would seem to provide more proof of how ill-timed December's tax cut was. We almost certainly didn't need budget-busting expansionary policies at a time when unemployment was already so low. Inflationary pressures will probably continue to pick up. The Fed will likely be more comfortable continuing to raise interest rates. I haven't looked at anything in the last day or two, but it still looks like we may see an inverted yield curve, which is often a precursor to a recession. But after a decade of the Fed manipulating short and long term interest rates, it's hard to say whether the yield curve is still a legitimate predictor of a recession. (If the Fed is more afraid of a recession than unemployment they may remain hesitant to increase interest rates.)

Idk if this what what you were looking for. I'm curious what thodoks thinks about the current fundamentals of the economy.

I haven't paid enough attention recently to have a credible opinion. All I know is that this is the kind of economic performance that gets politicians re-elected. Assuming underlying economic health is reflected in these numbers is irrelevant politically. Optics matter, not reality.

The report itself credits a lot of the change to an international trade binge ahead of tariffs. Next quarter may pay for this one’s bump.

Quote:

All I know is that this is the kind of economic performance that gets politicians re-elected.

I’m skeptical that this will help much. 2002 was a shit economy but a terrorism-centered election. Result: big incumbent party victories. 2014 had even better economic numbers than this, but a public mostly fixated on other things. Result: major incumbent party losses. This is another year where non-economic topics seem likely to be insurmountably noisier and forefront.

Also, historically the economy ranked first on voter’s polled topics. Health care replaced that, and has stayed at the top, for over a year now. Meanwhile, a lot of industries (including farmers) are sweating losses due to tariffs that a GDP figure doesn’t do anything to alleviate.

The report itself credits a lot of the change to an international trade binge ahead of tariffs. Next quarter may pay for this one’s bump.

Quote:

All I know is that this is the kind of economic performance that gets politicians re-elected.

I’m skeptical that this will help much. 2002 was a shit economy but a terrorism-centered election. Result: big incumbent party victories. 2014 had even better economic numbers than this, but a public mostly fixated on other things. Result: major incumbent party losses. This is another year where non-economic topics seem likely to be insurmountably noisier and forefront.

Also, historically the economy ranked first on voter’s polled topics. Health care replaced that, and has stayed at the top, for over a year now. Meanwhile, a lot of industries (including farmers) are sweating losses due to tariffs that a GDP figure doesn’t do anything to alleviate.

The Obama administration did a pretty awful job controlling the narrative of the economy for basically the entirety of the his term, so I don’t know how much 2014 applies to this year. A staggering amount of people still seem to think that Trump knows what he’s doing economically when all he did is inherent an economy that had finally recovered.

I’ve read the same speculation about this quarter having outsized numbers as firms tried to get stuff done before the trade war kicks in, but we’ll have to see. Either way I think it’s clear that the normal rules don’t apply to this guy electorally.

_________________"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle